Considered and decided by Kalitowski,
Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge;
and Worke, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WORKE, Judge

Relator Clarice Kirsch requests
review of the decision of the unemployment law judge that she is not entitled
to withdraw her benefit account. Because
relator’s requested relief is not available under the unemployment law, we
affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Relator argues
that she relied on representations of an unemployment-office employee regarding
her benefit account that resulted in the receipt of less unemployment benefits
than she would have been entitled had she withdrawn her account pursuant to the
statute.

Upon application
for unemployment benefits, the commissioner examines the application to
determine the base period and benefit year on which a determination of benefit
account is made. Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 1(b)
(2004). Once an account is established, it
may later be withdrawn only if the applicant has not served a waiting period of
one week or if a new benefit application has been filed and a new benefit
account established. Id.,
subd. 3b(b), .085, subd. 1(5) (Supp. 2005).
A second benefit account following the first is available only when the
employee has sufficient wage credits during the first benefit year. Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3
(2004). The limitation on a second
account is expressly designed to prevent an applicant from establishing more
than one account as a result of one loss of employment. Id.

Relator worked for
the same company for 28 years before it was sold and she lost her job. She filed for unemployment benefits on August
15, 2004, and then began receiving severance payments. On September 9, relator called the
unemployment office and spoke to someone who allegedly told her to call back at
the end of April 2005 to reactivate her account. Relator’s severance package ran to May
2005. After her account was reactivated
on May 1, 2005, she had a “waiting week” from May 1 through May 7, and then
began receiving benefits through August 13, 2005, the end of her benefit year. Because she had not worked since August 15,
2004, she did not qualify to establish a new benefit account at the end of her
benefit year. Relator claims that “[h]ad
[the unemployment employee] told [her] to close the account and open a new one
in April 2005, she would still be receiving benefits.” She claims that she lost $4,000 in benefits
based on the employee’s bad advice.

The ULJ determined
that under Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd 3b(b) an account cannot be withdrawn
unless the applicant has not served a waiting week. Thus, after May 7, 2005, relator could not
withdraw her account. The ULJ also
stated that even if the employee gave her bad advice, the statute does not
provide any exceptions to the rule for withdrawing accounts. Cf. Minn.
Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (providing that if department prevented
an individual from filing an application for benefits, account deemed effective
when individual first attempted to apply).
When relator asked the ULJ to reconsider, the ULJ affirmed its decision
that her benefit account could not be withdrawn.

There is no common-law
or equitable basis for allowing unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2004). Thus, relator must show a statutory basis for
withdrawal of her first benefit account or for granting her a second benefit
account. Because the relief that she is
requesting does not exist under the circumstances of this case, the ULJ
correctly determined that she did not qualify for additional benefits.